AV-Test.org: July / August 2013 - Windows 7

ZA mentioned at all in a testing result always draws a response from Fax.


Anyway you can't check ZA results on AV Comparatives as ZA won't test there. I like to use more than 1 lab to check results. This is a good way to minimize bias.


In the meantime as ZA uses KAV, you can just use KAV directly for AV.

If you want the FW in the same vendor and KAV use their KAV suite.

 

Avast is clearly more heavy that it used to be, (cpu wise) Norton is like epic fast, unreal stuff really.

 

Ditto..

 

Avast! have lots of modules, maybe thats why?

 

WSA Still first for performance. It's been that or Kaspersky for me lately. KIS on all the PC that don't need 100% performance, WSA on my main gaming rig.

 

Avast free performance is really sucking. I guess you get what you pay for

I am surprised about ESET's poor performance. Bottom of the pack. They used to have rock solid performance. You see them constantly plugging that at trade-shows etc.

 

they still do, otherwise I wouldn't be using it, this so called "performance" test is from another palent. The results does not represent what I feel and how the system responds.

I use ESET on a 9Yr old PC, if using ESET would result in a system performance as bad as this test shows, then I would be the first to let you know

 

How is Avast! sucking? It's detection is going nowhere but up. I don't trust the performance test for this. It does great on AV-Comparatives, and doesn't slow down older computers I put it on. You realize you have to give it a day or so (or a full scan) for it to build its cache right?

 

To once again put the scales into perspective:

Lowest detection score (microsoft):
77.5% mean average on 0 day.
94.5% mean average on the wildlist detection.
These are not terrible for something you are getting for free as part of the OS

Lowest performance score (norman and eset) was only 9 seconds! Anything under 10 seconds is still very light.

Lowest usability score (trend micro) was 31 false positives

 

I'm curious. Where did you find the facts that shows that the number(stands for second) and represents how many seconds it took to do....what?

 

Next to the industry average score it says "in s." But like you said, seconds of what? I like the AV-Comparatives performance test a lot more.

 

Thanks, I see.

 

"Average influence of the product on computer speed in daily usage" ... "visiting websites, downloading software, installing and running programs and copying data"

'n' seconds more than doing the same tasks without antivirus. They just don't say how many websites they visited, how much they downloaded, etc.

 

But having G DATA at 3 and ESET at 9, for example, is just laughable.

 

This is true...different pc's,different configs,cant say,but cant correct over-exaggeration of some comments here can we!??

 

Yeam and we can't correct constant defending of products as well

 

Did I say I was defending? No...That was your assumption as well.Without any further info and details about your system and config and confirmation of other people also facing same issue and until avast can replicate the issue you can't help it? There is nothing to defend here.Simple facts.

Brandon and I referred to qakbot and some others posts that were exaggerated not yours.

 

Dude, i'm using Avast with years already. But v7 and v8 is like 2x heavier then older ones. I install Avast on all of my friends configs, and on latest 3 they got cpu spikes! this is confirmed by me, and them. I also did remove the previous AV completely with AV removal tools.

You can load up 1080p video on YT, and try to skip a bit, open task manager, and you will see AvastSvc.exe using like 20% of your cpu. Now on my machine this is no problem, i got powerful system, but on my friends, instead of playing 1080/720p videos with like 60/70% cpu load, it just freezes cause of the spikes, mind you they got core 2 duo based pc's + 2/4GB ram which is far from low end based machines.

 

On a different note, AV-Test need to actually bother with decimal points in percentages.

 

Having Norton installed is like having nothing installed at all. No slowdowns and still high protection. One of the best antiphishing if not the best.

 

Just tried this with Avast v8 on a Intel core i5 430m. I loaded up a YouTube video which played at 1080p. Every time I skip a part Cpu usages spikes up to 20/40%.... That's why my laptop lagged a bit every time on YouTube with HQ when skipping a part. Interesting.

 

See. I don't imagine things! this same thing, happened on every machine lately.

 

Ditto!

 

I dunno about those speed tests... Every F-Secure version that I've tried has been über burden for computer. Avast seems really fast if code emulation is disabled. I had some massive performance and CPU usage issues with Comodo AV and hips part earlier this year. Webroot is really fast and light but lack of customisation and web shield issues made me switch back to avast.